Talking Politics with Dr. Tony Evans

In his new book, the Rev. Dr. Tony Evans advocates an elevated kingdom perspective for Christian political engagement, but are his views a spiritualized endorsement of the GOP platform? UrbanFaith talked to Dr. Evans about this, about disagreeing ‘honorably’ with President Obama, and more.

In his new book, How Should Christians Vote?, the Rev. Dr. Tony Evans says the Bible offers the guidance we need to make wise voting decisions, but he also says those decisions should reflect kingdom principles rather than allegiance to any political party. Evans is senior pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas, founder and president of The Urban Alternative, a national urban renewal ministry, and host of The Alternative with Dr. Tony Evans, which is heard on more than 500 radio stations. UrbanFaith talked to Evans about his new book, his views on same-sex marriage, and political engagement generally. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

UrbanFaith: You were recently interviewed by both NPR and CNN about your disappointment in President Obama’s statement of support for same-sex marriage. What kind of response have you gotten to those interviews?

Tony Evans: Mostly positive. We’ve had some negative, where people feel like it’s narrow minded and bigoted, but it’s been mostly positive from my constituency, which would hold to that view.

The editor of the media criticism site Get Religion has noted that because of this issue, the press is suddenly interested in what African American pastors have to say. Do journalists call you to talk about the work of Urban Alternative, its national Adopt-A-School initiative, for example?

No. That is the correct statement. We tend to be substantive with regard to the political issues of the day, not for what we do in improving people’s lives.

Why do you think the press is so interested in what black pastors have to say about same-sex marriage?

Because of its political implications. Will it affect the black vote or black support of the president? It’s a big cultural issue now in regards to the definition of the family and gay rights. So, because of its political clout, the African American tank becomes very important. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way most of the media is right now.

In your interview with NPR, you said race isn’t a choice and implied that homosexuality is a choice. Increasingly we’re hearing that race is to some degree a social construct. Are race and sexuality really so dissimilar?

They’re apples and oranges. For a person to enter into a homosexual relationship, it is their decision to do that. They have autonomy over that decision. How a person is born or the group to which they are a part of when they are born is something that the Creator has authorized. Homosexual marriage is not something the Creator has authorized. In fact, he’s condemned it. Since God has spoken on his created work and on his condemning work, and has been clear on both of those, we should not put those in the same category.

And so, when people compare the history of interracial marriage to same sex marriage, you don’t think those issues are similar?

No, they’re not similar because the way [same-sex marriage] was regarded before was wrong, and the Creator states that it is wrong. God would never have endorsed what the culture is allowing.

In your book, you says Christians should be like NFL referees when it comes to politics in that they should represent a kingdom perspective rather than identifying primarily with a political party. How can we really know what God’s will is on issues like health care or immigration law?

I believe that there are biblical positions on every issue, but no party fully represents all God’s views consistently on all God’s issues. Christians are going to vote differently because they will prioritize issues differently. My concern is that we’ve so aligned ourselves with the parties of this world that we’re missing the kingdom of God. The proof of that is that we’ve let political parties divide the kingdom of God. My illustration regarding referees is simply to say that while they sometimes vote for one team and sometimes vote for another team, they’re obligated ultimately to neither team, because they belong to another kingdom called the NFL. So, we should never let the party divisions interfere with the unity of the church, causing the church to lose its influence in the culture.

And yet, white evangelicals are very much identified with the Republican party and black Christians are often identified with the Democratic party. How do they come to such different perspectives on issues?

It’s more priority of issues. For example, the white evangelical community will emphasize right to life in the womb. The black Christian community will emphasize justice to the tomb. For me, those both are one issue, whole life, not term. Since that is one issue with two different locations, Christians can agree on the whole life issue even though they vote differently, and come out with a whole-life perspective that if we were unified both parties would have to interface with and take seriously. Because they can split us up along party lines, we do not have a single voice on the issues that represent the kingdom of God.

How can Christians become more unified despite their different political perspectives?

There should be a Christian manifesto that gives God’s view on all the prominent issues that is represented by Christians across race, cultural, and class lines. Christians should hold both parties [accountable to] speak to that manifesto.

Yes, like that, but specifically to reflect the comprehensive view, and not only to reflect it in a manifesto statement, but in how Christians come together and relate to each other, not going back to our own dug outs and separating after the manifesto is over. There should be an ongoing statement. Ultimately I think we should put forth a Christian-based candidate who is kingdom minded, who reflects a comprehensive Christian worldview.

Because President Obama grounded his advocacy for same-sex marriage in his Christian faith, would your idea of a Christian manifesto include a perspective like his?

No. It would not authorize anything that is unauthorized by God, and the definition of the family is one of those things. You can’t define the family differently than its creator defined it for cultural and political correctness. That would not be acceptable.

You advocate limited government in your book. How does limited government reflect biblical values?

In my view, the Scripture is clear that civil government is limited. Number one, because it’s not the only government. There is family government, church government, and ultimately the best government is self-government, because the more people that govern themselves, the less civil government we need. When God created Adam and Eve, there was total freedom except one narrow regulation, one tree they couldn’t eat from, but there were dire consequences. God says in 1 Samuel 8 that civil government is getting out of hand when it requires in taxes more than God requires in tithes. The mere fact that civil government should submit to God’s government means it’s going to limit itself to what God has given it responsibility for. All of these argue for limited government, freeing the other governments to do their job, not expecting civil government to intrude on the other governments God has established.

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference between the major parties in terms of the size of government; rather, it seems to be more a matter of where resources are directed, with one party focusing on national security and corporate welfare and the other prioritizing social supports. Does either party represent limited government?

No. First of all, we would be changing welfare on the Republican side for corporate welfare and on the Democratic side for social welfare. All of those would be reduced. All of those would be limited in a biblical worldview. A biblical worldview would never subsidize dependency. It provides help, so I’m for a safety net that, for able bodied people, demands the incurring of responsibility. For example, if your child gets federal money through Head Start, you should have to volunteer in that school. You shouldn’t be able to sit home and get the benefit without incurring responsibility.

Personal responsibility is an important value, but, these days, many people can’t find jobs that offer health insurance and they can’t afford to buy it on their own, for example. How do personal responsibility and communal responsibility interplay from a biblical perspective?

My view is that a just free market would address most of those. The problem with the free market on one side is that it often can be unjust. The problem with government is that it gets too big and therefore too cumbersome and it can’t address things properly. But a just free market—which means there are staggering consequences for breaking the law—would address most of those. If you had insurance across state lines, then competition that’s opening up the free market would reduce costs for insurances. It wouldn’t be prohibitive for businesses then to offer it. So, I believe that a just free market answers most of those concerns.

Doesn’t the combination of limited government and social conservatism just land you in the Republican party?

No, it doesn’t, because I believe that we have conservative, blue-dog Democrats who would hold to non-abortion, who would hold to the definition of a family as a man and a woman, and who would at least hold to a smaller government than now exists. I don’t believe you get locked down that way because then you become owned by that party.

You wrote in the book that you were friends with President George W. Bush. He ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” and tested some of these ideas. Do you think that worked out?

He got distracted by a big war in Iraq. He pushed faith-based initiatives and I do believe the more local charity becomes, the more beneficial, impactful, and accountable it becomes. The war distracted that emphasis and I was sorry to see that.

You advocate something you call “interposition,” which is “when righteous agents of God advocate on behalf of those facing imminent judgment or danger,” but critics have charged the Religious Right with not only alienating non-Christians, but also our own children. Are you concerned that the kind of political engagement you advocate will lead to alienation from the gospel?

Not if it’s done properly, if it’s done with love. One of the things I disagree with the Right about is the dishonor shown to the president. You can disagree honorably. I believe that many disagree dishonorably. You can engage in a loving way that demonstrates the heart of God, but that demonstrates the truth of God. Love must always be married to truth and truth must always be married to love. So I believe our methodology is a big part of the problem.

You provide a lot of detailed advice in the book about political engagement, but when people ask you how they should vote, what do you say?

I say, “Vote for the candidate and the party that will most give you the opportunity to advance the kingdom of God. And even though people may vote for that differently, if the kingdom of God and its advance is your primary concern, then you’ll be Democrat lite or Republican lite, so that in either party you’ll be the L-I-G-H-T.”

Christine A. Scheller is a widely published journalist and essayist, and an editor-at-large at UrbanFaith. She lives with her husband at the Jersey Shore and in Washington, DC, where she helps facilitate dialogue between scientific and religious communities.

Thanks for the interview. Politics and preachers have an interesting relationship. White evangelicalism warmly embraces Dr. Evans and it seems he’s more confortable with Republican politics even if he suggests some sort of distance from any particular party. Having your kids attend Falwell’s Liberty University suggests a strong degree of comfort with Right Wing politics.

But I also have an issue with the title. It asks about “Christians” voting, but the Red, White, and Blue imagery suggests that we are only talking about AMERICAN Christians. Aren’t there Christians in other places? What about Palestinian Christians? How should they vote? What about Christians in countries that don’t have the same political system as the US. Are there really transcendent principles for “voting?” I am concerned that our view of Christianity often seems more nationalistic and culturally constrained than it may have been in the first century.

Dennis, I think you missed the point of the book. This book is specifically targeted to Christians in the U.S. Your questions about Christians voting in other countries are valid questions, but that would be a separate book.

I am trying to be positive, things I have taught my children about telling the truth at all cost. My concision, will not allow me to take part in this. What if I would have told the binder story , the can food, and the jeep story. What would your opinion of me be. It is the little things, not the big things that must be honest about.

Thank you Dr. Tony Evans! You have stated my position as a Bible-believer perfectly when it comes to how we practice politics. I have advocated this position for years (since the mid 1990s). It is my position that the church should be like the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord in Joshua 5. When Joshua questioned him on whose side he was on, he said neither! He made it clear to Joshua that he represented God’s kingdom alone. It was not a question of what side he was on; the real question was who’s on the Lord’s side.

The church represents the Kingdom of God just as the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord. But too many of us have chosen sides. Thank God for Dr. Evans!

P.S. – We still have to realize though that even this position has its imperfections because human beings are involved. When Christ comes to establish His rule, then we’ll have government as God originally intended.

What Dr. Evans says about Christians being like NFL referees is simple but so profound. I believe his perspective is consistent, biblical, and practical. With all due respect, I also think the slanting in the intro, regarding whether his veiws are a spiritualized endorsement of the GOP platform is a little unfair and misleading.

I lhighly respect Dr. Evans and I love the tone and refreshing take of this interview, however, I take issue with him in the 2nd to last answer regarding the “Right” showing dishonor to the president. Had he said the “Christian Right” it would have been a fairer statement of his expectations. I also wonder how he addressed the same issue during the 8 years of the Bush presidency where there was the “Left” endless cawing, “Bush lied” and “Bush stole the election”, to name a few dishonorable attitudes toward that president. In this current administration it does seem that you cannot make statements against this president without being called out. Where was the calling out in the previous administration? Did Dr. Evans at that time make the same defense for a sitting president? Though I respect the office of the president and I pray for him as scripture calls me to do, if I don’t agree with his method of governance I will question it, just as I did in the Bush years when his administration was out of control.

The interviewer sure asked some loaded questions, would either of you consider corporate welfare the billions of tax payer dollars given to Solyndra and other failed green energy boondoggles by President Obama. Or the fact that the owners of those failed companies that received billions of dollars also gave a ton of money to the Obama campaign to get him elected to get those taxpayer dollars…seem a little dishonest? But it has always puzzled me that any Cheistian could vote for,the most proabortion president in our history. He is the only then senator to vote against the infants born alive act which protetected infants that survived an abortion. he is also not against late term abortions. Pastor Evans speaks of justice….not much justice for the babies huh?

You just have hate in your heart. The questions were fair and challenging. Please tell us of the 10 year biondogle we spent in the middle east. What about farm subsidies, ethanol, oil, etc… All presidents have been in favor of these forms of handouts. Every president in modern history has provided quid pro quo favors for campaign donors; so what is the real reason for your discontempt for this president? Please stop trying to mask it with a religious veil.

I appreciate what Dr. Evans says here – although I think that pretending that there are really “conservative” Democrat options is a bit naive. Most Dems talk a conservative game to get elected then follow the lead of leftists like Pelosi or Reid or Obama. Christians who want to protect life, help the poor and preserve freedom are basically pushed toward the Republican Party – even though it isn’t perfect. So most of us vote Republican – because in this moment it is the only way for us to even attempt really helping those in poverty while also somehow getting a handle on a overgrown debt that will hurt our future. I think in years past there was more of a choice between two good options – not so these days. Personally I would vote for a Dem if I believed they represented my Christian values – but I have never found one on my ballot that met that qualification. Serving those in need, proudly defending America, keeping the government out of religious matters – these key issues take us all right back to the Republican Party – particularly the more conservative voices in that party. I hope someday it is different, where we Christians have multiple options on the ballot that we could vote for in good conscience. For now, there’s one choice. GOP.

I very much agree with AmericanLight. As I have grown as a Christian, I have become more aware of my duty as a citizen. Christians must vote their values, I believe we will give an account one day on the choices we made in life. How vital it is that we don’t vote a certain way because we feel it will help us financially, there is definitely more at stake. God is my provider and I look to him to take care of me and my family. The Bible tells us to speak evil of no man, so rather than bash anyone, I pray for whoever the Lord allows to take office but I also need to do my part and vote my values.

Dear sir,
The reason for this letter is concerning your broadcast on 03/05/13 around 13:00 on station 89.1 in the Mississippi area on the symbolism or understanding the cross. And I hate to break it to you, but there’s no symbolism in the cross. The act of Jesus dying on one for us, yes. Understanding why He died for us, yes, but not the cross itself. For centuries, even before Jesus, crucifixions were used for public humiliation, torture and executions. To say we need to understand the cross, would be the same as understanding the bullet that killed JFK, the noose that hung Billy the Kid or the axe that beheaded Queen Elizabeth, they’re all just tools of executions….
But these are just my opinions, I could be wrong…..